GitHub Actions MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed run information including jobs,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform the agent adequately.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get detailed run information including jobs.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (fetching run details in a GitHub Actions context), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error cases, or behavioral nuances, which are critical for an agent to use the tool effectively in a real-world scenario.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (repo, run_id, include_jobs) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying that 'run information' includes jobs, which aligns with the include_jobs parameter. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed run information including jobs.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('run information'), and distinguishes it from siblings like gha_list_runs (which lists multiple runs) and gha_get_run_logs (which focuses on logs). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from gha_diagnose_failure or gha_get_workflow, which slightly limits clarity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like gha_list_runs for listing runs or gha_get_workflow for workflow-level details, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without explicit direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.